Question for evolutionists

Mott the Hoople said:
Sure it has. Please explain then how it’s being used almost every day by biologist, physicians, pharmocologist, biophysicist, agronomist and virtually all the applied life sciences and remains a foundational concept needed to undertall of biology?
Click to expand...

It isn't.

Biology developed long before Darwin. The Theory of Natural Selection has nothing to do with biology at all.
 
Into the Night said:
The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. This is about a past unobserved event. It is not possible to test such a theory. The Theory is falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.

Does evolution itself happen? Yes (that's why we have the word!). We can evolve new species of dogs, cats, plants, and all manner of critters. We can watch some of this take place naturally, such as Darwin did. Did it create 'higher order life' from 'lower order life'? No way to tell.
Click to expand...
I don’t like to say this but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The modern theory of biological evolution is simply stated as “a change in allele frequency within a population over time.”. This is an easily observable fact that isn’t really disputed by science.

What you stated is utter nonsense. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction that natural selection is directional. Where did you learn this nonsense? It sure wasn’t in any biology class taught by a competent instructor.
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
Yes. It. Is.
Click to expand...

The Theory of Natural Selection 'selects' by need. Selecting a particular variance and letting the others die off is NOT random variance. It is SELECTED variance. Nothing survives but the variance because the variance is what is 'needed'.

It is not random. It is stacking the deck!
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. I am not dismissing their arguments. I am merely saying they are nothing more than arguments. They are not Universal Truth or even correct at all simply by virtue of being bound in a book or put up on a website.

Philosophy has basically only one rule. No outside references. You must present not only your conclusion, but the reasoning for that conclusion as well. That reasoning must come from you. It cannot come from any other. This is the very nature of debate.
Things like books, websites, etc. are external to the argument. If you use them, they can only be used to support YOUR argument and YOUR reasoning for it. You can't just replace YOUR argument or YOUR reasoning for it by pointing to someone else's argument.

On this forum? A few. Typical of forums like this. Too few. It is a number greater than zero, however. I find such people on every forum I visit.

Void argument fallacy. You are not saying anything.

Insult fallacy. You don't know what my credentials, licenses, or certifications are. Neither do I depend on them to make my arguments. Claims of such credentials are useless on blind forums such as this one.

None.

Bulverism fallacy.

False equivalence fallacy.
Click to expand...

What’s the name for the fallacy where you keep pretending I’m making a philosophical or logical argument when in fact I haven’t bothered to do so?

All I’ve said is that I’m not going to regurgitate volumes of information but would be happy to recommend some good books if you want to actually learn something instead of run around being a douche calling everything I say a fallacy. I have in fact not engaged in a debate.

If you want to take me up on my offer, fine. If you just want to run around being douchey, that’s ok too. Everyone needs a hobby.

I don’t care about your BS philosophy or debate rules. I’m way more interested in science, which is a collaborative effort and builds on the work of the scientific community. I don’t think scientific questions can be resolved by philosophers or theologians chewing on pipes and stroking their goatees and making stuff up. Besides, I’ve seen enough debates to suspect your rules are somewhat idiosyncratic.

I also think your hypocrisy meter is broken since you started slinging insults and throwing shade before my ‘insult fallacy’, which wasn’t even a fallacy: it was a reading comprehension fail on your part. I didn’t say you weren’t an expert on anything, I said I doubted you were... my doubt is a True fact independent of whatever expertise you may or may not actually have, so it can hardly be a fallacy. Learn to read better if being a nitpicking douche is your goal in life. Nor do I conflate expertise with degrees and certifications. That makes it sound like you’re still in school. I don’t know many professionals who make that mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic mutations occurring. It has to do with those mutations being reproduced. The mutation is either advantageous and is selected or it is not. Genetic mutations exist independently of evolutionary forces but are the primary mechanism by which natural selection works guided by the law of inheritance, law of variation and law of super fecundity.
Click to expand...

Irrational. Arguing both side of a paradox is irrational.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
You're correct. Mutations are random and are the results of encounters with environmental factors like cosmic or earth-based radiation, exposure to chemicals in the environment, and mistranscriptions, among others. There is no "Finger of God" causing these things.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur. Why do you keep trying to bring any god or gods into the conversation?
 
Into the Night said:
It isn't.

Biology developed long before Darwin. The Theory of Natural Selection has nothing to do with biology at all.
Click to expand...
Again you don’t know what you’re talking about again. Biology prior to Darwin was called naturalism and had no underlying theoretical foundation. It was essentially stamp collecting.

Modern biology began when Darwin published On The Origins of Species which provided the first theoretical foundation in biology to make testable predictions that could be independently verified. Of the five foundational theories of moder biology, evolution, cell theory, genetics, ecology and homeostasis only cell theory predates evolutionary theory.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don’t like to say this but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The modern theory of biological evolution is simply stated as “a change in allele frequency within a population over time.”. This is an easily observable fact that isn’t really disputed by science..
Click to expand...
That is an observation, not a theory. This is simply observed evolution. It is not the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. It is not a theory of science.
Mott the Hoople said:
What you stated is utter nonsense. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction that natural selection is directional..
Click to expand...
The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection are unrelated. The Theory of Natural Selection (created by Darwin) has been falsified.
Mott the Hoople said:
Where did you learn this nonsense?.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone.
Mott the Hoople said:
It sure wasn’t in any biology class taught by a competent instructor
Click to expand...
False authority fallacy. Biology has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Natural Selection. Biology developed long before Darwin.
 
DarthPedant said:
What’s the name for the fallacy where you keep pretending I’m making a philosophical or logical argument when in fact I haven’t bothered to do so?

All I’ve said is that I’m not going to regurgitate volumes of information but would be happy to recommend some good books if you want to actually learn something instead of run around being a douche calling everything I say a fallacy. I have in fact not engaged in a debate.

If you want to take me up on my offer, fine. If you just want to run around being douchey, that’s ok too. Everyone needs a hobby.

I don’t care about your BS philosophy or debate rules. I’m way more interested in science, which is a collaborative effort and builds on the work of the scientific community. I don’t think scientific questions can be resolved by philosophers or theologians chewing on pipes and stroking their goatees and making stuff up. Besides, I’ve seen enough debates to suspect your rules are somewhat idiosyncratic.

I also think your hypocrisy meter is broken since you started slinging insults and throwing shade before my ‘insult fallacy’, which wasn’t even a fallacy: it was a reading comprehension fail on your part. I didn’t say you weren’t an expert on anything, I said I doubted you were... my doubt is a True fact independent of whatever expertise you may or may not actually have, so it can hardly be a fallacy. Learn to read better if being a nitpicking douche is your goal in life. Nor do I conflate expertise with degrees and certifications. That makes it sound like you’re still in school. I don’t know many professionals who make that mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your 'science' is nothing more than a fundamentalist religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It doesn't care about religion. Science is agnostic.
 
Into the Night said:
That is an observation, not a theory. This is simply observed evolution. It is not the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. It is not a theory of science.

The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection are unrelated. The Theory of Natural Selection (created by Darwin) has been falsified.

Argument of the Stone.

False authority fallacy. Biology has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Natural Selection. Biology developed long before Darwin.
Click to expand...
LOL Well as I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about about. You don’t even know what a scientific theory is. Try citing the modern theory of evolutionary theory is and you’ll find the definition I stated and not the gibberish you’re babbling about.
 
Into the Night said:
Your 'science' is nothing more than a fundamentalist religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It doesn't care about religion. Science is agnostic.
Click to expand...

You don’t know me, so I don’t know what you’re basing that on. Butt hurtness? I have never once in my entire life made the claim that science refutes religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Into the Night said:
Your 'science' is nothing more than a fundamentalist religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It doesn't care about religion. Science is agnostic.
Click to expand...
The principle of falsification is one important aspect of a scientific theory. It’s what makes science self correcting. You seemed to have forgotten or were not taught the other principles of a scientific theory.
 
Into the Night said:
Yeah. Check out a few books on plumbing.

You will find that you can't move any fluid without a separation of pressurized areas and unpressurized areas. That's a circulatory system when the fluid's purpose is to nourish cells.

You MUST:
1) have a device or mechanism for increasing pressure somewhere.
2) have a passage to conduct that pressurized fluid somewhere.
3) have a region of unpressurized fluid to act as a return path.

That IS a circulatory system, whether the 'blood' is hemoglobin, hemolymph, or sap.

The purpose of the blood is to nourish the tissues. The purpose of the circulatory system is to move the blood. You don't need one without the other. One element of the system alone would accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...

All of this is irrelevant.

All you have to do is look at the existing organisms in nature and see that circulation systems come in a wide variety of relative simplicities and complexities including no circulatory system at all (just direct contact with the environment), hearts with no blood or blood vessels (just moving fluid in the body cavity like an aquarium pump), hearts with vessels distributing fluid away from the heart but with no dedicated return loop, circulatory vessels with no hearts (for example using ciliate action or compressing the vessels themselves), with or without ‘blood’ and so on.

So these features didn’t not have to appear all at the same time in one go.

What you are failing to consider is how circulatory needs change as organisms 1) get bigger, 2) transition to land, 3) get taller or take to the trees so that they are spending more time vertically aligned and so on.

Life didn’t start out requiring a full circulatory system of the kind humans have now, and most of life of this planet still does fine without such a thing. When you appreciate the diversity of circulatory systems in use today and the gradual change in body size and environments, the idea that we just HAD to spring fully formed from Zeus’s forehead doesn’t seem very convincing.

All of life is phenomenally complex. You can pick any aspect and declare it’s just ‘too complex’ to have evolved. Of course, you know that this is just an argument from personal incredulity. But the fact is, we can see animals with hearts but no vessels, etc etc, so it is possible for these features to develop independently, in some cases to originally solve slightly different problems or suited for different sizes, lifestyles and environments.

There. Just so you can’t pretend I can’t make an argument. An apology for your slurs would be appreciated, but is not expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. Natural selection has nothing to do with genetic mutations occurring. It has to do with those mutations being reproduced. The mutation is either advantageous and is selected or it is not. Genetic mutations exist independently of evolutionary forces but are the primary mechanism by which natural selection works guided by the law of inheritance, law of variation and law of super fecundity.
Click to expand...

A really good example of how bees have mutated; but Damo is probably the best one to discuss this.

Seems that they've discovered, in one area, that the bees have "developed" a longer proboscis; because they need them to do what bees do to flowers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top